Paper Info
Title
Comparison Of Head Pose Tracking Methods For Mixed-Reality Neuronavigation For Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Abstract
Purpose: Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) is an important treatment option for medication resistant depression. It uses an electromagnetic coil that needs to be positioned accurately at a specific location and angle next to the head such that specific brain areas are stimulated. Existing image-guided neuronavigation systems allow accurate targeting but add cost, training and setup times, preventing their wide-spread use in the clinic. Mixed-reality neuronavigation can help mitigate these issues and thereby enable more widespread use of image-based neuronavigation by providing a much more intuitive and streamlined visualization of the target. A mixed-reality neuronavigation system requires two core functionalities: 1) tracking of the patient's head and 2) visualization of targeting-related information. Here we focus on the head tracking functionality and compare three different head tracking methods for a mixed-reality neuronavigation system.Methods: We integrated three head tracking methods into the mixed reality neuronavigation framework and measured their accuracy. Specifically, we experimented with (a) marker-based tracking with a mixed reality headset (optical see-through head-mounted display (OST-HMD)) camera, (b) marker-based tracking with a world-anchored camera and (c) markerless RGB-depth (RGB-D) tracking with a world-anchored camera. To measure the accuracy of each approach, we measured the distance between real-world and virtual target points on a mannequin head.Results: The mean tracking error for the initial head pose and the head rotated by 10 degrees and 30 degrees for the three methods respectively was: (a) 3.54 +/- 1.10 mm, 3.79 +/- 1.78 mm and 4.08 +/- 1.88 mm, (b) 3.97 +/- 1.41 mm, 6.01 +/- 2.51 mm and 6.84 +/- 3.48 mm, (c) 3.16 +/- 2.26 mm, 4.46 +/- 2.30 mm and 5.83 +/- 3.70 mm.Conclusion: For the initial head pose, all three methods achieved the required accuracy of < 5 mm for TMS treatment. For smaller head rotations of 10 degrees, only the marker-based (a) and markerless method (c) delivered sufficient accuracy for TMS treatment. For larger head rotations of 30 degrees, only the marker-based method (a) achieved sufficient accuracy. While the markerless method (c) did not provide sufficient accuracy for TMS at the larger head rotations, it offers significant advantages such as occlusion-handling and stability and could potentially meet the accuracy requirements with further methodological refinements.
Year
DOI
Venue
2020
10.1117/12.2547917
MEDICAL IMAGING 2020: IMAGE-GUIDED PROCEDURES, ROBOTIC INTERVENTIONS, AND MODELING
Keywords
DocType
Volume
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), head tracking, Mixed reality guidance, neuronavigation
Conference
11315
ISSN
Citations 
PageRank 
0277-786X
1
0.37
References 
Authors
0
8
Name
Order
Citations
PageRank
Supriya Sathyanarayana110.37
Christoph Leuze2825.72
Brian A. Hargreaves373.49
Bruce L. Daniel4449.43
Gordon Wetzstein594572.47
Amit Etkin6171.49
Mahendra T. Bhati710.37
Jennifer A. McNab832419.84